 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Releford1/7/2003
Factual Background
On February 9, 2000, Officer Steve Hammonds responded to a report that a burglar alarm had been triggered at the Elks Club in Kingsport, Tennessee. When investigating the perimeter of the building, Officer Hammonds noticed a vehicle that he knew belonged to the defendant in the parking lot. When he noticed the brake lights briefly illuminate, he decided to investigate the vehicle. The driver's side window was partially rolled down, and smoke smelling of burnt marijuana was emanating from the window. Officer Hammonds shined his flashlight into the passenger compartment through the window and observed that the defendant was holding a lit marijuana cigarette in his cupped hand. When Officer Hammonds asked the defendant for the cigarette, the defendant responded by putting the cigarette in his mouth and swallowing it. Officer Hammonds subsequently arrested the defendant and searched his person incident to the arrest. During the search, Officer Hammonds recovered $129 in cash and a plastic bag containing four smaller plastic baggies of a substance resembling powder cocaine, as well as one crack cocaine rock. Officer Hammonds then searched the defendant's vehicle and recovered $60 in cash and a pack of rolling papers. After the defendant's vehicle was later impounded, Officer David Quillen performed an inventory search and recovered two knives, one of the knives was found to have trace amount of cocaine on its blade, from the vehicle. Officer Quillen testified that the defendant could have used these knives for sorting cocaine into smaller individual bags.
The substances found in the defendant's vehicle were later identified as cocaine through chemical analysis. Celeste White, a chemist employed by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified that she administered tests on the substances with both an ultraviolet spectrophotometer and an infrared spectrophotometer. Ms. White explained to the court the scientific principles upon which the instruments operate and testified regarding the reliability and widespread use of these methods of chemical analysis.
After hearing this proof, the jury convicted the defendant as charged. As outlined above, the defendant now brings this appeal challenging his convictions and sentence. We find that none of the defendant's claims entitle him to relief and accordingly affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence.
Propriety of the Search and Seizure
The defendant complains that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the fruits of the search incident to his arrest and the impoundment and inventory of his vehicle. While the defendant recognizes that Tennessee law does not currently support his position, he argues that the law should be modified to better protect his privacy interests in his vehicle and accordingly prohibit searches of a vehicle where the individuals occupying the vehicle have been removed from it. Furthermore, he also argues that the state did not prove that it had a need to tow his vehicle and, therefore, the fruits of the resulting inventory of his vehicle, namely the two knives which both had cocaine residue on their blades, should have been suppressed. We will address each of these arguments in turn.
Standard of Review for Denial of Motion to Suppress
The defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress on several grounds. We note that "a trial court's findings of fact in a suppression hearing will be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise." State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996)). However, the application of the law to these fact
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|